Public insults to be legalised but grossly offensive messages still criminal

15 January 2013 by

Twitter-Logo UK human rights blogSection 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws the use of “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviourwill be amended to remove the word ‘insulting’. The amendment is the result of a successful, high-profile campaign which asked “Do we really need the police and the courts to deal with insults?

That campaign, supported by major organisations and many MPs, prompted a successful House of Lords vote to amend the wording in December. That vote was supported by the Crown Prosecution Service, with Director Keir Starmer writing that his organisation was “unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not properly be characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting“. The Home Secretary has now, rather grudgingly, said she will not oppose amendment.

So, we will be able to insult in public. But thanks to section 127 the Communications Act 2003, it is still up to the police and the courts to decide whether we have sent grossly offensive messages on Facebook, Twitter and in practically any other communications medium. As I have argued before, this law was designed to prevent malicious telephone calls long before the entire world began messaging each other in public over social media. Like the ‘insulting’ ban in the Public Order Act, this has become a high impediment to free speech and urgently needs reform.

The Crown Prosecution Service has done a reasonable job with its new prosecution guidelines. But there is still a significant potential for abuse, with people being hauled in front of local magistrates  and pleading guilty before anyone finds out. Last year there were almost 5,000 reports and 653 people charged for ‘social media offences‘, a huge increase. But ‘social media offences’ are poorly defined and it appears that nobody  is keeping track of offences affecting free speech.

Just like the campaigners pointed out about section 5 POA, there  have been a number of worrying prosecutions under s127, including some for stupid, offensive jokes made on Twitter and Facebook, intended for small audiences. Worryingly, many successful prosecutions have been against adolescents who had no idea that their stupid jokes could lead to prison sentences.

There are three key questions in this debate. First, do we really want police and judges deciding which jokes, throwaway comments and idiotic off-the-cuff remarks are ‘grossly offensive’? Secondly, is there a single conviction under this law which has made society a safer, better place without unduly impinging on free speech? Thirdly, does s.127 add anything to the already existing criminal protections against harassment and stalking?

In my view, the answers to all three questions is ‘no’. Section 127 outlawing grossly offensive communications is an out of date, bad law which impinges on freedom of speech. Like its ‘insulting’ cousin under section 5 of the Public Order Act, it needs to be reformed.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

7 comments


  1. […] read Adam’s post about the word ‘insulting’ being removed from Public Order act 1986 s 5 with interest. In it he […]

  2. Reblogged this on Julian Summerhayes and commented:
    A post worth reading although there is still much clarity that is lacking (not in the post but in the law).

    1. Sounds to me like someone needs to start a campaign similar to the Reform Section 5 campaign to protect free speech on the social media websites.

  3. High time for some common-sense, as well as restoring a sense of proportion to the meaning of free speech.

  4. James Lawson says:

    Home Secretary’s announcement to Parliament is here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0eUJixN_64&feature=youtu.be

    It is interesting to note that the objection the Police have to its removal is that it a ‘useful tool’ to the maintenance of public order!

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Thanks James- I have added that link to the post

  5. Roland says:

    Well said and couldn’t agree more

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: